Ambert v. Stafford
- Proceeding
- writ
- Outcome
- other — Further, Plaintiff has failed to articulate pr
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's motion for the appointment of counsel in a civil action challenging the validity of his arrest. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish the 'exceptional circumstances' required for such an appointment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel Denied“Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard for appointing counsel in civil cases, which requires a showing of 'exceptional circumstances' based on the likelihood of success and the complexity of the issues. The court noted that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state recognizable causes of action, making it impossible to assess the likelihood of success, and characterized the claims as routine rather than complex. This reasoning supports the denial. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the governing legal standard from Ninth Circuit precedent and applies it to the specific facts recited in the order. It addresses both prongs of the Weygandt test: the inability to assess likelihood of success due to the lack of recognizable causes of action, and the determination that the legal issues are not sufficiently complex to constitute exceptional circumstances. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GENE AMBERT, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00996-RBM-DEB FL DOC #A50783, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Petitioner, 13 MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF vs. COUNSEL 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 15 [Doc. 43] UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 16 GENERAL M. GARLAND; UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE; 17 MARSHALL STEVEN C. 18 STAFFORD; and FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 19 Respondents. 20 21 22 On February 20, 2024, Petitioner/Plaintiff Gene Ambert (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion 23 for the Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”). (Doc. 43.) In his Motion, Plaintiff contends 24 that this is a complex case of constitutional magnitude that requires the assignment of 25 counsel. (Id. at 2.)1 Plaintiff contends that he has “written for pro-bono counsel or [a] 26 27 28 1 1 para-legal with either negative or ‘no response’ from those contacted, including law 2 schools.” (Id.) Plaintiff also contends that the law clerks at Blackwater River Correctional 3 and Rehabilitation Facility do not have the experience to assist him and that he does not 4 have sufficient access to the law library because he cannot check out books overnight and 5 only gets 12 to 15 hours a month of access.2 (Id. at 2, 5–7.) Finally, Plaintiff contends that 6 he will be prejudiced if counsel is not assigned. (Id. at 3–4.)3 7 “Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 8 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 9 1981)). “However, a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for 10 indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Id. (citing Agyeman v. Corrs. 11 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). “When determining whether 12 ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the 13 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 14 complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 15 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be 16 viewed together.” Id. (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); 17 see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding the trial court did 18 not abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel to inmate in Bivens action). While 19 federals court recognize that incarcerated pro se plaintiffs are at a disadvantage, the test is 20 not whether a plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel; the test is whether 21 exceptional circumstances exist. See Dotson v. Dr., No. 1:14-cv-00093-LJO-SKO (PC), 22 2014 WL 2208090, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2014). 23 Here, Plaintiff has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus as Affidavit/First Amended 24 Complaint that appears to challenge the validity of Plaintiff’s arrest(s) and various 25 26 27 2 The Court will address Plaintiff’s Motion for Access to the Institutional Law Library (Doc. 45) in a separate order. 28 3 1 || agencies’ failure to provide Plaintiff with adequate and proper documentation; however, 2 || Plaintiff does not allege any recognizable causes of action. (Doc. 32 at 2-10, 19-21.) 3 || Accordingly, the Court cannot assess Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits. 4 || Additionally, while the Court understands that Plaintiff's incarcerated, pro se status places 5 at a disadvantage, prisoner pro se actions such as Plaintiff's alleging various 6 || constitutional violations related to his arrest are routine and not as complex as Plaintiff 7 ||suggests. Further, Plaintiff has failed to articulate prejudice. 8 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established exceptional 9 || circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is 10 || DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||DATE: April 15, 2024 et Bermisl, Moitaygys 14 HON. RUTH BERMUDBEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3